Skip to content

[Performance] Memoize hasGit check#7923

Draft
gonzaloriestra wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
performance-memoize-hasgit-5396090806031353117
Draft

[Performance] Memoize hasGit check#7923
gonzaloriestra wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
performance-memoize-hasgit-5396090806031353117

Conversation

@gonzaloriestra

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

WHY are these changes introduced?

The hasGit check runs git --version, which is a shell command. Redundant executions of this check during a single CLI command lifecycle add unnecessary overhead.

WHAT is this pull request doing?

Memoizes the result of hasGit using a module-level promise. This ensures that git --version is executed at most once per process, and concurrent calls return the same promise.

Expected performance impact: Reduces process execution overhead by avoiding redundant git --version calls.

How to test your changes?

CI

Checklist

  • I've considered possible cross-platform impacts (Mac, Linux, Windows)
  • I've considered possible documentation changes
  • I've considered analytics changes to measure impact
  • The change is user-facing — I've identified the correct bump type (patch for bug fixes · minor for new features · major for breaking changes) and added a changeset with pnpm changeset add

PR created automatically by Jules for task 5396090806031353117 started by @gonzaloriestra

Memoize the result of the `hasGit` check to avoid redundant `git --version` shell executions. Concurrent calls now return the same promise, and subsequent calls return the cached result. Added unit tests to verify memoization and cache reset behavior.
@google-labs-jules

Copy link
Copy Markdown

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.


For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the no-changelog This PR doesn't include a changeset entry. Is an internal only change not relevant to end users. label Jun 25, 2026
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Differences in type declarations

We detected differences in the type declarations generated by Typescript for this branch compared to the baseline ('main' branch). Please, review them to ensure they are backward-compatible. Here are some important things to keep in mind:

  • Some seemingly private modules might be re-exported through public modules.
  • If the branch is behind main you might see odd diffs, rebase main into this branch.

New type declarations

We found no new type declarations in this PR

Existing type declarations

packages/cli-kit/dist/public/node/context/local.d.ts
@@ -132,6 +132,11 @@ export declare function cloudEnvironment(env?: NodeJS.ProcessEnv): {
  * @returns A promise that resolves with the value.
  */
 export declare function hasGit(): Promise<boolean>;
+/**
+ * Resets the memoized value for the hasGit check.
+ * This is only used for testing purposes.
+ */
+export declare function _resetHasGit(): void;
 /**
  * Gets info on the CI platform the CLI is running on, if applicable.
  *

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

no-changelog This PR doesn't include a changeset entry. Is an internal only change not relevant to end users.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant